[LBird]

Hmmm… 'real', now, eh?Is there no end to your diversions?God forbid you'd answer the question about 'objective facts'. At least ALB is entering into the enquiring spirit of things.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.

Go, figure?

More useless comment. No question, no explanation, no help.You're an obstacle to workers' advancement.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.

That's clearly false, at this moment in time at least…

I didn't specify 'when', did I, smart arse.It was a simple answer to a simple question.Why don't you go and hang out with your academic friends, and discuss truth and logic to your heart's content, and leave this thread to those who want to learn, to ask more questions, to deepen their knowledge, and participate as comrades.Your method is to confuse, to maintain your status. It's elitism, pure and simple. No attempt to discuss the thorny issue of 'objectivity', in a helpful way, but yet another diversion, into 'truth and falsity'. You wish to complicate, the better to prevent the spread of knowledge amongst workers.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.So, for the bourgeoisie (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is impossible.And, for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.Thus, both 'possible' and 'impossible' are 'socially subjectively right'.There is no 'objective' answer.This method also applies to physics. The fruits of relativity, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

Vin, I've tried several times to put a stop to our bickering, and try to engage with you about the philosophy of science. I'm keen to help any comrades get to grips with this supposedly difficult subject.In fact, because I'm a Communist, I think we should try to simplify many of the explanations given by academics in books, because I think that they are deliberately written to keep the knowledge away from ordinary workers. In line with this effort, I've asked you some questions, to try to get you started on some of the issues involved.But…you always immediately jump to the end, and ask why something 'obvious' to you can't be simply taken as 'The Truth', and then begin to rubbish my explanations.So, I give it back. Now, I just ignore the content of your posts, and take the piss.I don't want to do this, I really want to discuss the philosophy of science, and develop my own understanding further. But the antics of you, DJP, YMS, Brian, and now ALB, have made this impossible.I think I can say that the only posters who've made any real attempt to engage are SocialistPunk and alanjjohnstone, and the latter even admits that they are out of their depth, rather than bluster on, like the rest of you.Now, if you can stop yourself from having another dig, let's put the insults behind us.Can you answer the question about 'objective truth'? Do you think that there are 'facts' outside of any social framework?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Yes, yes, yes, Vin, that mud on your hands really is there. So, that's sorted out the philosophy of science, eh? If Vin's got mud on his hands, or Vin can touch a rock, what's the need for all this nonsense about 'science'. 

 I don't remember saying that. Nay I never said it. "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." Wiki

Mud and straw man, Vin. You have some substance, you're not just an intellectual scarecrow.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

But, ALB, I've just proved that you did say "objective", when you seemed to be baffled when I claimed that you'd said it.But, no acknowledgement that I'm right, just another diversion away from the thread title.The reason this thread continues to go round in circles is precisely because the tactics you're now employing are the same as those that the rest of them have employed throughout!Do you believe in 'objective facts' or not? It's a simple question.I'll happily answer it.No, there is no such thing as 'objective facts'. 'Facts' are always 'theory-laden',  and are part of a framework of selection. In that sense, 'facts' are always 'subjective'.There! I can give a clear answer.I already know that the mob will return to "ahhh, but 'subjective' is 'idealism', 'post-modernism', 'individual opinion' " and avoid answering my question about 'objectivity'. Even though they've already been told that by 'subjective', I mean 'socially subjective', that the 'subject' is always a social creation, imbued with social ideas and ideology. This is the same old diversionary tactic, to avoid answering a question. Can't answer 'objective'? Move to 'subjective'. Can't answer 'subjective'? Move to 'knowledge'. Can't answer 'knowledge'? Move to 'truth'. Can't answer 'truth'? Move to 'logic', 'maths', 'mind', 'rocks', 'mud' … now 'naive socialism', just so no-one has to talk about 'Science and Communism'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally..

I don't recall saying that. When and where was it?

ALB, post #310, wrote:

This is not a mere matter of opinion ("ideology") but is the case irrespective of whether people agree with it or not or what they might think. It is an objective fact.

[my bold]If your going to deny it, ALB, or start to play with words, saying something like,"ahhh… but 'objective fact' isn't 'absolute unmediated "Truth" "then I'm done with you, too.No wonder ajj can't follow these discussions. He's right to be unimpressed by them.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Is that really true?If so what makes it true?

The deaths of hundreds of millions of workers and Communists?We've listened to the 'Objective Truthists' for far too long. But, we're learning, slowly…If only we'd listened to Marx, rather than Engels.

So..1. 'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.2. Hundreds of millions of workers and Communists died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.3. Therefore 'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.I don't think you've yet got a valid argument there yet.

'Valid' for who?Valid for workers, or valid for the elitist academics who 'know' logic?Don't worry, I know your answer. 'Logic is not a democratic vote'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally.So do you. You're a 'physicalist'. Or are 'physical' things not true? If everything is 'physical', what about Marx's value? He categorically denies that it has anything 'physical' in it. 'Not an atom of matter', he insists.Philosophy really is out of the reach of the party, isn't it?Yes, yes, yes, Vin, that mud on your hands really is there. So, that's sorted out the philosophy of science, eh? If Vin's got mud on his hands, or Vin can touch a rock, what's the need for all this nonsense about 'science'.The individualist, empiricist, method of the 19th century bourgeoisie.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Is that really true?If so what makes it true?

The deaths of hundreds of millions of workers and Communists?We've listened to the 'Objective Truthists' for far too long. But, we're learning, slowly…If only we'd listened to Marx, rather than Engels.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

They always argue that they have a method which gives them special insight into 'really what reality is'

This is pure strawman repeated for the umpteenth time. Almost no-one would claim this today.

'Almost no-one'?What is it they say about 'ruling class ideas, DJP?Or have you ditched Marx as well as workers' democracy?And it wasn't me who used the phrase 'objective truth', but your party comrade ALB.ajj, should you keep listening to these fellow party-members, because they have the best interests of the working class at heart? That's not sarcasm. They really believe it.Me? I think that the working class should decide its own interests, by a democratic vote, and reject 'objective truth' for the bourgeois myth that it is. Parties are not god, and they don't have an access to reality which is denied to the proletariat. No party does. They always claim to have this access to 'objective truth'. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the comedy duo 'DJP & ALB'…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

oh i am sure there will be an instant retort of the importance of this discussion for working class ideas and the promotion of their consciousness…but again on those other threads i have asked just what relevance it all has for us mere workers with mundane matters on our mind such as ALB's question.

This is the  tightest I can get the explanation, ajj, since I know that, unlike the other 'experts', you don't pretend to follow or understand the intricacies of this 'esoteric' debate.'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.I think that this is very relevant 'for us mere workers'.To expand just a titchy bit, if workers allow any authority outside of their own democratically-arrived at opinion (any authority including so-called 'reality') to dictate to them, they'll be powerless.This notion that 'workers have to dicate what reality is' goes entirely against the myths of the bourgeois scientists and the fools who follow Engels' materialism. They always argue that they have a method which gives them special insight into 'really what reality is', when the determination of 'what reality is' is a human task, and thus a task for the whole of society, if one is a Communist.I hope that this helps a little, if only to explain what is at stake.

ajj wrote:

Since you forgo membership of the SPGB (and other groups), LBird, can i hear some practical advice on how we firstly communicate our ideas so that the meet with a receptive audience that our ideology (and yours, despite differences) are simply is not reaching.

My 'practical advice' is to first find an audience willing to listen. I thought that I might be given a hearing on LibCom, the ICC site, and here, but they've all proved to be in thrall to the ruling class idea of 'objective truth', so I've never yet been able to put that 'practical advice' into 'communicating our ideas'.I had high hopes of the SPGB, after years of searching, but the disappointment continues. Y'know what they say about 'the ruling ideas in any society being the ideas of the ruling class'…You wouldn't believe the venom against the very suggestion of 'workers' democracy within science'. You'd think I'd suggested digging up the corpse of Marx and buggering his remains.Now, Engels… perhaps….

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Trouble is, my returned insults are accurate insults, whereas yours just suggest that any worker who dares to argue for democracy is an oddity and alone.

Surely the proletariat have to vote on that to determine if it's an objective fact or not?

Yes, 'sneering and ignorance' just about sums up your approach. All the time I've spent trying to reason with you has been completely wasted.Have a nice day with your 'Truth'.And it's part of ALB's 'objective truth', isn't it?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So, in other words "I'm the only communist in the village, everybody else are dumb and ignorant Leninists"

Just what I'd come to expect from the SPGB.Still can't have a discussion, just insults.Trouble is, my returned insults are accurate insults, whereas yours just suggest that any worker who dares to argue for democracy is an oddity and alone.

[Author]

Posts